Author Archives Laura Arnold

Lindsay Shipps with Onward and Upward from Minneapolis: Conservative Approaches to Clean Energy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 25, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Displaying image1.JPGCitizens League Energy Conference_Minneapolis

Photo by Lindsay Shipps, Onward and Upward, Special Correspondent to IndianaDG

Conservative Approaches to Clean Energy: Innovative Solutions for the 21st Century

Date/Time
Date(s) - 07/25/2016
2:30 pm - 5:30 pm

You don’t often hear the terms “clean energy” and “conservative” in the same sentence, but that hides the fact that a new generation of conservative policy thinkers have turned their attention to the economics of the energy marketplace. Both nationally and here in Minnesota conservatives have been putting some meat on the bones of their “all of the above” strategy, coming up with innovative solutions to building a 21st century energy marketplace.

They argue that technological innovations in energy generation can have the same effect in the energy marketplace as mobile phones did in telecommunications, and that it is time conservatives embrace the possibilities.

On July 25th the Citizens League will be joining with the Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum to host an event featuring both national and state policy thinkers to explore the growing movement of conservatives embracing both technological and marketplace innovations in delivering energy to consumers. Join us for what will prove to be a surprising and interesting conversation.

Moderated by Paul Douglas, Meteorologist

Confirmed Panelists Include:
Dario Anselmo, GOP Candidate for Minnesota House of Representatives
Keith den Hollander, Chairman of the Christian Coalition of Michigan
Pat Garofalo, Republican Chair of Job Growth & Energy Affordability Policy and Finance Committee, Minnesota House of Representatives
Ryan Hodum, Vice President, David Gardiner & Associates
Amy Koch, former Majority Leader of the Minnesota Senate and Chair of the Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum
Mark Pischea, Conservative Energy Network.
Catrina Rorke, State Programs Director, R-Street
David Strom, Executive Director, MnCEF

Conservative Approaches to Clean Energy:
Innovative Solutions for the 21st Century
Monday, July 25, 2016

2:30 – 4:30pm  – Panel Discussion
4:30 – 5:30pm – Complimentary Social Hour

Minneapolis Event Center
212 2nd St SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414 (map)


IndianaDG is posting this while the meeting is still on-going. Watch for further updates from Lindsay Shipps with Onward and Upward who is reporting from Minneapolis.

Q&A: Conservatives debate clean energy approaches in Minnesota

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 25, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Catrina Rorke is the state program director at the conservative R Street Institute.

Catrina Rorke is the state program director at the conservative R Street Institute.

Q&A: Conservatives debate clean energy approaches in Minnesota

Some conservatives, concerned they're being left behind in the clean-energy discussion, have begun to show a growing interest in renewable energy and public policy at both the state and federal level.

State organizations have formed to promote a free market view of energy, and national advocacy groups have become more forceful in the debate, as seen a forum held last week at the Republican convention.

Tonight in Minneapolis, the non-partisan Citizens League joins with the newly formed Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum to hold a panel discussion billed “Conservative Approaches to Clean Energy.” One of those panelists is Catrina Rorke, state program director at the right-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank R Street Institute.

Before joining R Street a year ago, Rorke started the energy program at the American Action Forum. She’s also worked for a Congressional member on Capitol Hill.

She spoke to Midwest Energy News about what a conservative approach to clean energy might look like and addressed a few state issues in the Midwest. The interview was edited for clarity.

Midwest Energy News: How would you describe your advocacy?

Rorke: My work has been to show how if you apply conservative principles you can see much better environmental outcomes through the creation of markets and technologies that are new, and awesome, and changing the way people interact with energy decision making.

What do conservatives see in clean energy that is attractive?

Debbie Dooley was really the first to point out that there are a lot of people who want to have choices in energy. The beautiful thing about rooftop solar technology is that you can produce power for yourself. For people who want to be more self-sufficient this is great. But I think adoption would be faster by eliminating subsidies and focusing on market solutions. That will help us integrate these technologies over the long term and create more solutions conservatives will like.

Let’s talk policy. Do we need a carbon tax?

R Street has spent a long time advocating for a revenue neutral carbon price as an alternative to the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases. I think that would be a really great first step – an outcome-based policy that doesn’t ask government to set an emissions target. We’re asking the market to design itself around internalizing the price of carbon dioxide.

What about the Clean Power Plan?

I don’t think the Clean Power Plan is good policy. I don’t think it’s actually legal under the Clean Air Act, I think the EPA has far outstepped their boundaries in devising this regulation and others recently. At a minimum we need Congress to address greenhouse gas emissions through updated legislation. [The Clean Power Plan is] destructive to our energy economy.

Have you looked at Minnesota’s energy policies?

Minnesota uses a mandate, a renewable energy standard, to promote clean energy. We’re seeing in other states that businesses are contracting, through third-party purchasing agreements, relatively large amounts of renewable power. They can only do that in states that allow this third party construct, and Minnesota doesn’t.

Minnesota uses government mandates and the will of the utilities to promote clean, energy, but not market choice. But I like the value of solar approach the state is beginning to use and I’m interested to see how that plays out.

Your very opposed to tax credits for renewables, right?

Our focus at R Street is eliminating tax preferences of all sorts, through the Green Scissors coalition and other efforts. We want to get rid of tax preferences for incumbent industries and for renewable energy subsidies. We want to eliminate subsidies that come and go and therefore create a lot of instability in the marketplace.

What about all the tax credits for fossil fuel industries?

In environmental tax policy it’s an interesting question as to what counts as a tax break. A lot of times when you see breaks in the tax code for fossil fuels it’s because they actually pay more than other kinds of businesses in taxes. So there is a healthy debate as to what constitutes a tax break. I think we should get rid of all tax breaks.

You mentioned a paper you're about to release on the topic of taxation.

We’re working on a paper now that would replace all corporate income tax entirely with a carbon tax and force EPA to get rid of regulations for CO2 emissions. That would create a much clearer tax code for energy purposes.

You also don’t like efficiency standards, do you?

The Department of Energy has 50 categories of appliances that require a minimum efficiency level for those devices. That strategy eliminates choice. My belief is that all kinds of people ask for Energy Star devices. Plenty of them opt into efficiency, so we don’t have to limit what they buy to get the same result.

You call for the elimination of the renewable fuel standards, which is something plenty of people left and right agree on, right?

There is a desire to re-evaluate the renewable fuel standard and ethanol as a transportation fuel. The renewable fuel standard was passed to encourage energy security by growing our transportation fuel rather than importing it. We’re producing now a lot of oil at home, so the reason of energy security is now off the table. We know ethanol above a certain level can damage engines. It’s not as favorable for emissions as we thought, either, so it’s time to re-evaluate the policy.

What about business responsibility for carbon emissions and pollution in general? So much of your argument is about limiting government regulation. You’re trusting business to do the right thing.

I would point to the example of third-party purchase agreements. There are ways companies go above and beyond state level energy policy. They have sustainability goals themselves. They often want to go beyond what the government does. We do want to allow businesses to go above and beyond government, but there is a strong role for government in making sure we don’t have excessive pollution, that we don’t trample people’s rights. We want a government that is small and effective.

 

IURC Nominating Committee Scheduled to Meet 7/25/16; 11 Applicants for Slot

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 24, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 Seal of the State of Indiana

Notice of Public Meeting

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Nominating Committee

Monday, July 25, 2014, 1:30pm EDT

Indiana Government Center South

Conference Room 1

302 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN  46204

The IURC Nominating Committee will meet Monday, July 25, at 1:30 p.m. to determine the applicants to be interviewed for the open Democratic seat on the IURC.  Listed alphabetically those applying include: (Note: Most links to LinkedIn profiles where available.)

  • Laura Ann Arnold; President, Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance
  • Jeb Bardon; former Indiana State Representative; Owner/Operator of Subway Sandwiches and Salads
  • Keith Beall; former top MISO attorney who was a 2014 applicant
  • Sarah Freeman; Senior Staff Attorney, Legislative Services Agency (LSA)
  • Jeffrey Golc; former IURC Commissioner
  • Tim Jeffers; Director, Business Development and Community Relations, CSO Architects
  • David Johnston; Chief Technical Advisor, Electricity Division of IURC; 2014 applicant
  • Marya Jones; Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), IURC
  • Shawn Kelly; independent regulatory strategy advisor; formerly Director of Regulatory Affairs and Director of Energy Efficiency for Vectren
  • Christopher Starkey; attorney
  • Ronald Turpin; Insurance Company Financial Executive; Board Chair of Greater Fort Wayne, Inc.

 

The interviews (depending on availability of the appropriate room) will preferably be held Friday, August 5, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with the backup date being Thursday, August 4, same times.  Background checks will be conducted August 8 to 18, with the Committee meeting again on Friday, August 19, 1:30 P.M., to select the three candidates whose names will be forwarded to the Governor.

Rectify Solar participates in first “Living Building Challenge” project in Indiana

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 22, 2016  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

Rectify Solar LLC logo

Contact:

Phil Teague pteague@rectifysolar.com

(855) 573-2843 or   (317)643-1002

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 21, 2016

 RECTIFY SOLAR PARTICIPATES IN FIRST

“LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE” PROJECT IN INDIANA

 
INDIANAPOLIS - Rectify Solar LLC is currently installing a 24 kilowatt ground mount solar panel system for Cope Environmental Center’s new sustainable Education Center located in Centerville, Indiana. The solar panels -- which will provide approximately 30,000 KWH per year -- are one of the features of the center’s construction that will net zero the building’s energy.

 The solar panels are one component of the new building’s Living Building Challenge (LBC), a building certification that defines the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible. There are only eight fully certified LBC buildings in the United States and this project is the first attempt in Indiana.

The Living Building Challenge is comprised of seven performance categories called Petals:

Place, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity and Beauty. All of the components of Rectify Solar’s system were put through a stringent vetting process to ensure that the products are LBC compliant and sourced as locally as possible. All components are ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) compliant.

When complete, the Cope Environmental Center’s Education Center will serve children in east central Indiana and beyond. It was funded by private donations and highlights the legacy of sustainability left by Jim and Helen Cope and Francis Parks, the Center's three founders.  (All three founders have now passed; Helen Cope most recently in 2015 at the age of 95.)

Cope Environmental Center’s mission is to promote the sustainable use of the earth’s resources through education, demonstration, and research by educating children in their 130 acre outdoor classroom through interactive, hands-on sustainability and nature-based programming for schools and other groups.

Rectify Solar LLC is a family-owned business with 10 years of experience in the solar industry with a Heritage of over 500 PV installations. The company -- a 2014 ISBDC EDGE Award winner -- promotes energy efficiency and sustainability through photovoltaic solar panel and electric vehicle charging stations installations, blown insulation, LED lighting, battery systems, and DIY solar panel kits sales.


 

Rectify Solar LLC is a business member of Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance (IndianaDG).


 

 

Grist: Meet a Republican mayor and convention delegate who takes climate change seriously

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 21, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Meet a Republican mayor and convention delegate who takes climate change seriously

Jim Brainard, the six-term mayor of Carmel, Indiana, may seem like a typical Midwestern Republican, but he doesn’t govern like one. Carmel, a city of 86,000, is a suburb of Indianapolis. Over the course of his 21-year tenure, Brainard has made it steadily greener and more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly. Those improvements have cut the city’s greenhouse gas emissions — and helped Carmel rank consistently in recent years among the nation’s best places to live, according to Money magazine.

At the same time, Brainard is a Republican and proud of it — even though his party just adopted a stridently anti-environment platform. He spoke with Grist by phone about what it’s like to be a green, urbanist Republican.

Q. Will you be at the Republican National Convention this week?

A. I’m a delegate. I was selected by the Indiana county party chairs.

Q. Does that mean you are a pledged delegate? For whom?

A. Yes, Donald Trump won our state primary, so I’m pledged for him. Personally, I was John Kasich’s co-chair in Indiana. I haven’t endorsed anyone since he dropped out.

Q. How do you square being tough on climate change with being a Republican?

A. There are multiple paths to the same result. Conserve is the root of the word conservative. We ought to be preserving our fossil fuels if they’re needed in a future emergency. We wouldn’t have to be involved in as many of the wars we’ve been involved in if we weren’t protecting our flow of oil. Whether one chooses to believe the scientists or not, there are many reasons to reduce our use of fossil fuels. In terms of science, a conservative ought to err on the possibility that [scientists] might be right.

Q. What is your proudest environmental achievement?

A. We’ve done a lot of things. One thing, which we did for other reasons, but it has huge environmental benefits: We’ve built the most roundabouts of any city [in the U.S.]. Initially it was because we wanted a reduction in fatalities and injuries from car accidents. It saves electricity on traffic lights and it saves millions of gallons of fuel per year because people aren’t sitting idling at lights. It’s more efficient to just slow down than to stop altogether and restart.

Twelve years ago, I issued an executive order for our fleet of city-owned automobiles to be hybrids. We built a geothermal energy plant. We’ve done a lot of tree planting to absorb some of the carbon we’re putting out. We’re using the methane flame from our sewage to heat our biowaste to about 900 degrees, which turns the biowaste into fertilizer. So we’re no longer filling our landfill with biowaste.

Q. What other transportation policies have you implemented that reduce emissions?

A. We’ve created a bike-share program. We were a car-centric sprawling suburb. It was not walkable. So we took the little village area and turned it into an arts district. Then we master-planned a walkable downtown where people can work and live and play. Our goal is 190 miles of bike and pedestrian trails so people from almost every neighborhood now can get to the city center without a car.

Q. If you support smart growth and environmentalism, why are you a Republican?

A. These parties are big tents, unlike Europe where you’ve got nine or 10 parties on the ballot. Lots of people with very different opinions are in those tents. I grew up in a small town in Indiana and we grew up thinking that Republicans believe in equal rights and investments in education. Seventy-five percent of my city votes Republican. It’s cultural as much as anything. If I grew up in Manhattan, I’d probably be a Democrat.

Q. What’s it like being a pro-environment Republican?

A. The environment used to be a Republican issue. Teddy Roosevelt created the national parks, Eisenhower protected the Arctic, Dick Nixon signed the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, Ronald Reagan believed in the science of the hole in the ozone layer and joined the Montreal Protocol.

I’m very frustrated that some in my party are denying the science [of climate change]. It seems to rank up there with people who think the Earth is flat and the moon shot was a hoax. I grew up with the kids of farmers and preserving land was a Republican value. Since when do Republicans or Democrats want to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air?

Q. As a mayor, what federal policies would help you reduce carbon emissions in your city?

A. Energy and environmental block grants to local government. They were passed once during the economic stimulus. And this is a conservative idea: Government closest to the people gets to decide how the money is spent. We used stimulus money to switch out our street lights for LEDs. We got a 20 percent return on investment.

Q. If your city is 75 percent Republican, do you ever get public opposition to some of the policies you’ve enacted?

A. Our voters love what’s happened. Educational attainment levels in the city are very fortunate. I think most of our voters are fiscally, socially moderate to liberal, and in terms of innovation, creativity, lack of resistance to change, they’re a pretty progressive place.

Q. Even progressive towns often find it impossible to get rid of space for driving and parking, given how wedded so many people are to their cars.

A. Our civilization had 2,000 or 3,000 years of knowledge about how to design cities going back to the Romans. Then the car comes along. Our cities were still walkable until 1946 or so. It was about being able to go to a restaurant and have a couple drinks and walk home. It was about being able to walk to errands. It was about parks and public spaces for our kids. It’s about building a community that’s good for everyone in your city.

Q. Mike Pence, the Republican nominee for vice president, is the governor of your state. What do you think of him?

A. He has balanced the budget. Our economy is good, ahead of the national average and neighboring states. I think he has been distracted by some social issues in the last year, but overall has been a good governor. He’s also a very nice man.

Q. But he doesn’t accept climate science.

A. And I disagree with him about that.

Q. Or evolution, or that smoking causes cancer.

A. Are you sure that he said that smoking doesn’t cause cancer?

Q. Yes, he said, “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”

A. I had never heard that quotation before. It’s very disappointing.

Q. Why do you think so many Republican politicians reject climate science?

A. In the primary system, so few people vote and they tend to be far right or far left. It forces candidates to the extreme. The people who do well run to the far left or far right. They’re so committed to the far left or the far right that they get into office and it’s impossible to get things done. Whether they’re privately moderate and don’t really believe some of those things, I don’t know. States should do what California did with nonpartisan primaries and get candidates in the middle. Also the system of money in politics has to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

A lot of Republicans are bothered by the science deniers. I don’t call them climate skeptics; they’re science deniers. By speaking out, I hope that other Republicans who are concerned about the shape of the planet that we leave to our children will speak out too. Just because Democrats are for something doesn’t mean Republicans can’t be too. Can the Republican Party get back to the principles that made it a strong party years ago? I hope so.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG